<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1989 (8) TMI 23 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23188</link>
    <description>The HC concluded that Section 44C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, does not apply to the non-resident company, as its business operations were entirely in India. Consequently, the Tribunal&#039;s decision to disallow a portion of the head office expenditure was overturned. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating no disallowance could be made under Section 44C. No order as to costs was issued.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2024 10:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=62187" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (8) TMI 23 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23188</link>
      <description>The HC concluded that Section 44C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, does not apply to the non-resident company, as its business operations were entirely in India. Consequently, the Tribunal&#039;s decision to disallow a portion of the head office expenditure was overturned. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating no disallowance could be made under Section 44C. No order as to costs was issued.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23188</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>